YOU can always trust Christians to muddy the waters of tolerance – and they did so with a vengeance in normally liberal California when a coalition of religious zealots, helped largely by the Mormons, spent millions to drum up support for Proposition 8, which successfully overturned gay marriage in that state.
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court’s voted to uphold the state’s gay-marriage ban – to the fury of thousands.
And in doing so it bizarrely created two classes of same-sex couples: those who married legally before the ban, and those who want to marry, but are now prevented by law from doing so. The marriages of around 18,000 couples who tied the knot before the ban remain valid.
Married: George Takei, right, and Brad Altman
Star Trek veteran George Takei – helmsman Hikaru Sulu in the series – was one of those whose marriage remains unaffected. Takei married long-time partner Brad Altman last September.
But Takei is unhappy with the ruling.
They decided to be indecisive. It was a ruling that doesn’t resolve anything because there is still inequality. It’s like [George Orwell's Animal Farm] — some pigs are more equal than other pigs. We’re more equal than some of the other gays and lesbians.
Takei slammed the court for changing sides on the issue.
This Supreme Court, which only 12 months ago — last year in May — ruled that it is a fundamental constitutional right that marriage equality extend to gays and lesbians, did a flip-flop. This so-called ruling by the California Supreme Court will ultimately be condemned by history.
Takei says he expects the battle to continue with an appeal to the US Supreme Court or another vote in 2010. But he is hopeful for a result that will allow all gay and lesbian couples the same privileges he now enjoys.
[It] is going to be the same song and dance over again, but by that time, I think the vote will have changed and we will prevail.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
May 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Maybe, just for fun and to show the hypocrisy of some people, some people should propose the re-introduction of slavery or taking away the right of women to vote. I wonder what kind of reactions such a proposal would get.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Where did the California Supreme Court get the idea that it has the power to overthrow the First Amendment's prohibition of any "law respecting an establishment of religion"? I was under the impression that only a new Amendment, ratified by 38 states, could do that.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I agree. I am totally confused about this. No state, even with a 100% "Yes" vote in any referendum it cares to hold, can overthrow any part of the American Constitution – unless it secedes!! The judgment is bizarre!
May 27th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I wonder if it is time for all western style democratic states to adopt the principle that in order for something to be illegal it has to be proved that it does do actual harm. The principle could be applied to any proposed new laws which would have to pass this test before having any chance of being enacted. Anyone being prosecuted under an existing law could invoke the "No Harm Principle" as a defense and if successful the law in question would have to be reviewed and either modified or removed from the statute books altogether. Preferably the principle should include the stance taken by John Stuart Mill in his On Liberty essay which opposes the right of the state to intervene in cases where a miscreant was harming no one but himself.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
If this principle were in place at the moment then the anti gay lobby would already be on the back foot, desperately trying to come up with some supposed disastrous consequence of legalised gay marraige. It would also be a way of reforming current irrational and ineffective laws on prostitution and drug abuse, with the additional advantage that anyone who stated that the "No Harm Principle" was a threat to such laws would find it difficult to make a case without shooting themselves in the foot.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
What is deeply flawed about this situation is that the vast majority of people who vote on the proposition will not be affected by the outcome one way nor the other. The votes of gay Californians whose lives are directly affected, by definition, count for just a small percentage of the final tally.
Glad that the spiteful, entitlement-to-control puffed fundies in this country have far less power and influence now.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Sodomy is an abomination!
May 27th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
But not half as harmful as religion!!
May 27th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
It's appalling how this whole Proposition 8 thing went. Certain religions and organisations weighed in by getting their members to vote Yes, then pretended to be shocked when that was the result, lying to the public. How can such medieval thinking still exist, particularly in the US which is supposed to be the great international experiment?
Oh yes: Takei is on the right in that picture. The clue is in the name of the actor and the character.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
It’s my understanding that the court was only ruling on the question of whether Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California constitution (which can be changed by popular referendum), or a revision of the document (requiring an action of the legislature). They seem to have ruled correctly that it was an amendment, added by referendum.
Of course, the question of whether a state constitution can be amended to effect the removal of a minority groups’ civil rights will be resolved through further litigation, and is, in any case, a very bad precedent to be setting in a liberal democracy. It’s setting civil rights back at least half a century. Which group will have their equality as human beings legislated away next?
As a Californian, it boggles my mind that gay marriage is illegal in my state, but not in the fairly conservative mid-western state of Iowa!
May 28th, 2009 at 12:24 am
So is shellfish. Aren't you late for a protest at the local seafood restaurant?
May 28th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Sadly though our marriages have been left intact for the time being, Lou Sheldon and his band of Merry Bigots are working to have us forcibly divorced. Those hateful scum won't rest until they have a theocracy.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:08 am
But doesn`t The Constitution of the State of California now contradict The Constitution of The United States of America?
May 28th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Am I the only one who is never informed by email of new comments on this site?
May 28th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Whoops, thanks for pointing out the error. We've corrected the caption.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
The way I think it works is you get a notification if somebody replies to your comment as opposed to making a new one! Not sure though best ask Barry.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
So is yoking an ox and an ass to the same plough. See how amazing it is that though it was written thousands of years ago the Bible is still relevant to modern life. Farmers around our way use John Deers though.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I tend to associate abomination with religion…
…as in a bombin' asian = a bearded twat with an unhealthy outlook on life and a danger to society, especially to those who use public transport.
Talking of public transport, about 20 years ago I was travelling on the London Undergrowth, just minding my own businness, when I saw some-one I thought I knew.
I approached him and asked if he was George Takei, knowing damn well that he was. He obviously acknowledged the fact cos he obviously was, and still is!, He told me that he had a fascination with the London Tube network and we had a good chat.
Tis' true. Probably one of the weirdest tube journeys of my life. I did think twice about posting this, who would believe it. but hey, who gives a shit.
Me and Mr Sulu on the Bakerloo Line talking about that sword fight!
You couldn't make it up.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
So selling your daughter into slavery is OK in certain conditions. These nutters do tend to be selective despite their "The bible is our rule book and we follow that."
May 28th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
barriejohn wondered: “But doesn`t The Constitution of the State of California now contradict The Constitution of The United States of America?”
Some are litigating that question now. Others feel that this move is premature, and could worsen the situation for equal marriage rights should the US Supreme Court decide against them. Of course, the US Constitution has been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court to support “separate but equal” education for those of African descent, and then later to abolish that same institution as unconstitutional. What is or isn’t legally permissible depends on the social and political climate of the time, and the views of the justices.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Well – I didn`t get any notification of THIS reply!
May 29th, 2009 at 11:54 am
How I laughed and laughed when I heard the result. The land of fruits and nuts rejecting something like the marriage of gays, dear oh dear.
Typical though of the freethinkers – the law must only work in their favour.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
And wearing cotton/polyester mix shirts, Stonyground! "We`re all doomed, Captain Mainwaring – DOOOOOMED!!"
May 30th, 2009 at 7:11 am
No.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
znMPJb comment6 ,